Video Games and the Hobbit

Yeah, deep choices for today’s writing. What can I say, it’s a slow news day today. And perhaps more importantly, I spent the whole day working, without time to read anything, and I got through it by listening to Howard Shore’s Hobbit soundtracks.

A few weeks back I read this article on violence in video games, how violence is pretty much the only way to get ahead most games these days. You can find racing games and puzzle games if you look hard enough, but the days of Tetris ruling the market are long gone.

I was reminded of the game made out of Return of the King. The fight scenes from the book and movie were translated well, but whenever there was a plot point that didn’t involve a fight scene in the original, somehow it became a fight scene in the adaptation. Instead of Sam sneaking through the Spider’s lair and up the tower, there’s a big fight. Instead of Frodo being escorted to Osgiliath, there’s a fight. Instead of Aragorn running through the canyons, there’s a fight. Instead of Gandalf just walking up to Isengard, there’s a fight.

In contrast, if any games have been made of the Hobbit films, they could just be copied shot-for-shot, because those films are already video games. Every fight that happened in the background in the books has of course been placed front and centre. Many peaceful scenes - the trip to Rivendell, meeting Beorn, the escape from Mirkwood - have become big fight scenes. Action interludes that do nothing to advance the plot and can be safely skipped, like a commercial break.

I’m not sure where I’m going with this revelation. Except to conclude that I’d really like to see a version of the Hobbit films that cut the time down about three hours. And I think I ought to look for more video games that involve jumping or stacking blocks.

Tar Sands, Tar Sands, Fires in the Tar Sands

I was just voluntold for a recurring newsletter writing thing, so I figured this would be a particularly bad day to not write anything. I checked the news, and it turns out, we’re all out of news. Show’s over, folks!

Well, like I said, this would not be a good day to skip. So I went looking elsewhere. BBC World, Al Jazeera English, the Globe and Mail, et cetera. Then I checked the Grauniad, which I used to read regularly until I started running short of time. Perhaps it’s time to add that back in the rotation?

The first page I scrolled to was, naturally, “The Americas”. Why read about scandals in France when I can read about scandals in Brazil?

As luck would have it, there’s amazingly good representation for Canada on the front page. Of the 35 articles covering this entire hemisphere, 11 are about Canada. Compare that to 4 about the US and 5 about Brazil. But that’s where the good news comes to a crashing halt. As it turns out, when Canada makes the international news, it’s not flattering.

Here’s the rundown: MacKay, Ottawa gunman, MacKay, Doctor dies, alleged Nazi war criminal dies, Tar Sands, Tar Sands, Tar Sands, Tar Sands, Wildfires in the Tar Sands, Michael Sam.

That’s a little different focus than we usually get here. But it’s an interesting perspective. And some of it at least is good news. So as we enter the weekend take a few moments to celebrate MacKay quitting, Nazis dying, and Michael Sam getting a CFL job, and be sure to pretend all the horrible things haven’t been happening at all.

5 Anti-Feminist Myths that Will Not Die

I’m feeling a little too lazy to write a proper blog post tonight, but luckily I went on a little facebook rant that I can elaborate a little on.

But first, some background. Last September, Christina Hoff Sommers wrote an article for Time called “5 Feminist Myths that Will Not Die”. It crossed my Facebook feed this morning and I couldn’t resist posting a few comments.

“Much of what we hear about the plight of American women is false. Some faux facts have been repeated so often they are almost beyond the reach of critical analysis. Though they are baseless, these canards have become the foundation of Congressional debates, the inspiration for new legislation and the focus of college programs. Here are five of the most popular myths that should be rejected by all who are genuinely committed to improving the circumstances of women:”

So right off the bat, we know that this article is all about debunking myths about women… not stereotypes about women, but rather myths put forward by those who claimed to support improving women’s circumstances but aren’t “genuinely committed”.

“MYTH 1: Women are half the world’s population, working two-thirds of the world’s working hours, receiving 10% of the world’s income, owning less than 1% of the world’s property.”

I don’t know how common this is, I’d only ever encountered this in the context of a debunking. In particular, I saw an article last year pointing out that the figures were close enough 50 years ago, but didn’t allow for any progress made in the intervening decades. I recall adding up the wealth owned by all the female Walton heirs… it didn’t equal 1% of the world’s wealth, but it was enough that I am happy dismissing this as a myth. But really, has anyone been using this seriously, or is it just a straw man?

“MYTH 2: Between 100,000 and 300,000 girls are pressed into sexual slavery each year in the United States.”

This is another one that I hadn’t heard of before, though Sommers cites a few celebrities who have mentioned it. She points out that the number is based on a misreading of a study that stated 100,000-300,000 were at risk, not that they were actually being pressed into sexual slavery. Follow-up with the author of that study led to a much lower figure of “a few hundred” who were actually pressed into sexual slavery.

Sommers makes a very good point here… except that the revised figure is grotesquely understating the true number. I suspect the definition is too narrow, and probably only counts children in forced prostitution. If you add forced marriages to the definition… well, there are probably “a few hundred” children pressed into forced marriages in the little town of Creston, British Columbia, population 5000. That’s an extreme example, it would be unreasonable to extrapolate to the national population, but it’s far from the only town like that.

I suppose it’s possible those marriages don’t include sex. I don’t think that’s very likely, though.

“MYTH 3: In the United States, 22%–35% of women who visit hospital emergency rooms do so because of domestic violence.”

OK, I’ll grant that this one might just be complete hogwash. But is this a myth that won’t die, or is it just something that gets passed around as encyclopedia authors plagiarize each other? At least unlike the first myth she doesn’t claim that it’s been used to justify new laws or anything.

This reminds me of the 10% of the brain myth, or the amount of iron in spinach myth… things that started with typos and spread due to lazy fact checking. Except that, well, I’d never heard of it before so I doubt it’s spread all that much.

I guess this qualifies as the Argument from Personal Incredulity. But still, I’m a little incredulous.

“MYTH 4: One in five in college women will be sexually assaulted.”

Ah, now we’re getting somewhere. This is a thing I’ve actually heard of… not only that, but it’s been circulating since Sommers wrote her article, and I’ve seen it pop up just this last week. Actually this is probably why the article is coming up again.

And it turns out that, rather than being a myth that won’t die, it’s actually a perfectly legitimate finding that has been replicated. Just not to Sommers’ satisfaction. The studies apparently suffer from a sampling problem… Sommers claims that women who have been sexually assaulted are more likely to participate in the study than those who have not been. Well, it’s just as easy to make the counter-claim, that women who have been sexually assaulted want to avoid answering questionnaires about the experience. Underreporting of rape is a serious problem as well, after all.

Sommers goes on to claim that the definition of sexual assault is too broad, including unwanted touching, attempted forced kissing, and drugged sex. Well, guess what? Those are all sexual assault. They might not all be rape, though the last clearly is, but they are all sexual assault. That’s why the statistic isn’t given as 20% chance of rape.

I think this little rant is already too long to get into a detailed definition of rape, but can we stop pretending it only means scary black men with guns hiding in the bushes at night? The majority of rape falls into the category of “drugged sex”. Probably the vast majority.

“MYTH 5: Women earn 77 cents for every dollar a man earns—for doing the same work.”

Oh hey, I heard it’s up to 79% now. Progress! That’s what Sommers is complaining about, right? That the myth hasn’t been updated with the latest census data?

As it turns out, no. This one has been debated to death, but Sommers drags out the usual arguments against it. Women choose lower-paying careers, and women leave work to raise children.

Well, guess what? Those don’t explain the whole pay gap. Women make less than men in the same field, with the same amount of training and experience. The only cure for this has been unions, which reduce the gap to a few percent.

Some of the best-paying careers systematically exclude women, whether those women would like to choose that career or not. Fields that are male-dominated but become female-dominated get devalued as a result, as happened with teaching in the 19th century. Fields that are female-dominated but become male-dominated become better paying as a result, as happened with computer programming in the 1960s and 1970s. Fields that are female dominated in some places and male-dominated in other places, like medicine, are devalued in those places where they are female-dominated.

So, full disclosure, I was biased against this article from the start. I don’t know whether you’ve heard of Christina Hoff Sommers, but I have been warned about her. She’s an ex-academic who left to join a far-right think tank. She’s an outspoken anti-feminist, which I always thought was a little hypocritical coming from a woman. Surely anti-feminists would consider it unseemly for women to be outspoken? She’s also a supporter of the misogynistic harassment campaigns that have been plaguing the internet.

This is actually the first time I’ve read some of her writing directly. But I’m not impressed. She takes one or two questionable facts and attempts to overturn entire fields of study with them. She takes “not proven” verdicts and calls them complete exoneration. She glosses over thousands of rapes and enslavements as if they don’t exist. just because nobody can tell her that “thousands” is “precisely 3,811”. She dismisses drugged rape as if it was just another Tuesday, and groping or forced kissing as if it was expected and deserved on any given subway ride.

Hopefully I never have to read this sort of dreck again.

...

...

Wait, didn't I say I felt too lazy to write a proper blog post? I guess an improper blog post was just what the doctor ordered.

Bill C-51 Analysed

So this is fascinating. A legal analysis of the C-51 Anti-Terrorism bill I’ve been complaining about for months. Commissioned by the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, and done by the Centre for Law and Democracy.

Full disclosure: I haven’t heard of those groups. But the author is a lawyer, which is the important thing here. I was hoping someone qualified would take a look at this.

All the initial reports were saying that the bill was overbroad and maddeningly vague, written so that it could apply just as easily to the Trans-Mountain or Idle No More protestors as to violence. It was amended in April, to narrow it a bit. But I hadn’t seen anything saying just how broad the amended bill was.

It looks like the answer is still “pretty broad”. The lawyer, Toby Mendel, didn’t speculate about who might be targeted by the bill. But whoever it targets, there are still lots of problems with it.

This bill will introduce new restrictions on free of speech. It will allow the government to seize and suppress “terrorist propaganda”. It could easily apply to news reports. This is over and above the restrictions on incitement to violence, which we have had all along.

The standard for calling material “terrorist propaganda” is administrative action taken on “reasonable grounds”. Not judicial action taken when proved beyond reasonable doubt, as I would hope for. It’s all up to the minister, apparently.

This bill also introduces a no-fly list, and includes the ridiculous idea that nobody can appeal for 90 days. Why the delay? If their inclusion holds up in court, they lose the appeal, it lasts longer than 90 days. The only possible reason to include this provision is if you expect to lose on appeal but want to punish people anyway.

The lawyer mentioned that this could be used arbitrarily against peaceful protestors and the government’s political rivals, but said that this is “unlikely in a Canadian context”. Why not set it up so that it can’t be used arbitrarily? Why rely on the unlikelihood of breaching unwritten rules of etiquette?

The whole thing just stinks of a power grab, relying on people’s fear and the other parties’ goodwill to entrench their own authority.

Party Lines

Party discipline is strictly enforced in Canada, as it is in most other Westminster-style parliaments. It isn’t enforced legally… in fact, for a long time parties were irrelevant as far as the law was concerned, and I think the first mention of them was concerning the appointment of a Prime Minister from the largest party.

This is the natural consequence of having the executive branch being dependent on the support of the legislative branch. Once the very existence of a government is in question, keeping those legislators in line becomes a much higher priority. Those ministers and backbenchers who don’t stick with the party line are removed from the party, and sit as independents. They are still in Parliament… but they lose a lot of the influence, lose the chance to sit on committees, and lose all the support they need to get reelected.

What this creates is a situation where most of the time you don’t really need to know anything about the local candidate. Not even their name, sometimes. You can safely vote just based on the colour of their tie.

There are two exceptions to this. First, the elected member can change parties. If ejected from a party they can join another, or if they are dissatisfied they can go looking for another. There are no legal barriers to this… remember, the party is just a voluntary association on their part, even though it’s usually the most important consideration for the electorate.

The second situation is when a member chooses to vote against their party. Such a situation has just arisen, in the Senate, but the circumstances prove just how effective party discipline really is in this country.

Liberal senator Mobina Jaffer has come out against Bill C-51, the Conservative’s anti-terrorism bill. The Liberal party as a whole supports the bill. Perhaps when they found out they weren’t the opposition anymore, they decided to be the support? Whatever their reasoning, they’re for C-51.

Mobina Jaffer can’t face retaliation for this, because as it happens all the Liberal senators were kicked out of the party last year. Not based on their votes, but rather because the Liberal party is against the appointed Senate and wants elected senators instead.

Interestingly, the Conservatives and NDP also support an elected Senate. Or at least, they did. The Conservatives changed their position to supporting an appointed Senate just as soon as they formed the government and were faced with the chance to make the appointments.

The NDP hasn’t had that chance, so I won’t speculate on whether they would drop their principles as well. But kudos to the Liberals on making the honourable choice to boot out their senators… after enough Conservative senators had been appointed to cost them their majority anyway.

Anyway, enough cynical jabs. Mobina Jaffer is against C-51. Good for her. It doesn’t matter that much, though I will be really impressed if 52 or so Conservative senators join her. I’m not holding my breath.

And as for elected members crossing the floor… well, I think it ought to automatically trigger a byelection. Let them find out if their constituents support the choice. It requires making the party system official… but let’s get real here. The parties have been in charge for longer than Canada has existed. Making it official won’t change that.

Throw It In and Run for Cover

The Conservatives have announced a carbon emissions goal, 30% drop by 2030. It’s not enough to hold climate change to a reasonable level, but it’s a start. It’s also nigh-impossible.

I think this is a good sign. Not for the climate, no. But at least it’s a good sign for the election. What longer political tradition is there than announcing a big project, not making any headway, and leaving it for your political opponents to take the heat for cancelling it? I think this is a sign that the Conservatives are expecting to lose.

But the climate will be no better off here.

Fuzzy Vampires at the Open Mic

I just did some volunteer training for the NDP today, and they brought up an interesting problem that I’ve run into way too many times... people people who will just talk your ear off forever and ever. They warned about the vampires, who suck away all your time.

Brevity is wit.

I tend to be pretty impatient when it comes to long drawn out speech. I find that at every event with a Q&A there will be a few people who just monopolize the microphone, giving a statement rather than asking a question. I think I wrote about that just a couple days ago.

It’s easy to shut these people down when you disagree with them… but sometimes you agree. Those are the fuzzy vampires, who you get along with but who still suck away all your time.

Of course you can find it in other settings as well. I’ve had a lot of patients where, when I ask them a simple and direct question, they’ll give me a ten minute essay that doesn’t actually lead anywhere.

What the instructors today had to say was that for some of these people, it’s the first time anyone’s ever asked them their opinion… for one, it had been the first time anyone had ever knocked on his door. Funny, I thought that’s what the internet was for, but I guess some people don’t have it.

The lesson, though, was that sometimes you just have to go away, no matter how much you agree with them, or how much you want to argue with them. Life’s too short.

And as for the open mic? You need to be willing to shut them down, because they aren’t just wasting your time, they’re wasting a hundred people’s time. At the event earlier this week I suggested using the Oscar music to play them off… but you can always just cut the power.

I used Norman Rockwell’s “Freedom of Speech” picture for that post. But just because you have freedom of speech doesn’t take away other people’s freedom to not listen.